Energy efficient routing formation algorithm for hybrid ad-hoc network: A geometric programming approach

Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, a novel routing formation algorithm called Geometric programming based Energy Efficient Routing protocol (GEER) is proposed for hybrid ad-hoc network. It optimizes two sets of objectives: (i) maximize network lifetime and throughput, and (ii) minimize packet loss and routing overhead. The stated optimizations are done by the fusion of multi-objective optimization, geometric programming, and intuitionistic fuzzy set. The combination of stated techniques provides an effective tool that evaluates an optimal solution based on all objectives and estimates non-linear parameters of the network. The proposed method GEER is simulated in LINGO optimization software and validated with some existing methods in several scenarios. The outcomes of validation illustrate that the proposed method GEER outperforms the other existing methods based on several network metrics.

Keywords

Hybrid ad-hoc network Multi-objective optimization Geometric programming Fuzzy goal Intuitionistic fuzzy set 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the associate editor and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions that helped us to improve the content of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Venkata Krishna P, Iyengar NCSN, Misra S (2008) An efficient hash table-based node identification method for bandwidth reservation in hybrid cellular and ad-hoc networks. Comput Commun 31(4):722–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhong Y, Kwak KS, Yuan D (2009) Cross layer multicarrier mimo cognitive cooperation scheme for wireless hybrid ad hoc networks. Comput Commun 32(3):546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garmehi M, Analoui M, Pathan M, Buyya R (2014) An economic replica placement mechanism for streaming content distribution in hybrid cdn-p2p networks. Comput Commun 52:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yuste-Delgado AJ, Cuevas-Martinez JC, Canada-Bago J, Fernández-Prieto JA, Gadeo-Martos MA (2016) Improving hybrid ad hoc networks the election of gateways. Appl Soft Comput 41:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chai Y, Shi W, Shi T, Yang X (2017) An efficient cooperative hybrid routing protocol for hybrid wireless mesh networks. Wirel Netw 23(5):1387–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sah DK, Amgoth T (2018) Parametric survey on cross-layer designs for wireless sensor networks. Computer Science Review 27:112–134MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jayraj S, Singh A , Shree R (2011) An assessment of frequently adopted unsecure patterns in mobile ad hoc network: requirement and security management perspective. Int J Comput Appl 2.9:0975–8887Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Das SK, Tripathi S (2017) Adaptive and intelligent energy efficient routing for transparent heterogeneous ad-hoc network by fusion of game theory and linear programming. Applied Intelligence, pp 1-21,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-017-1061-6
  9. 9.
    Das SK, Tripathi S (2017) Energy efficient routing formation technique for hybrid ad hoc network using fusion of artificial intelligence techniques. Int J Commun Syst, pp 1–6,  https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.3340
  10. 10.
    Sudhakar P, Pal P (2014) Spin-MI: energy saving routing algorithm based on SPIN protocol in WSN. Natl Acad Sci Lett 37.4:335–339Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaswan A, Nitesh K, Jana PK (2016) A routing load balanced trajectory design for mobile sink in wireless sensor networks. In: 2016 international conference on advances in computing, communications and informatics (ICACCI). IEEE, pp 1669–1673Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaswan A, Nitesh K, Jana PK (2017) Energy efficient path selection for mobile sink and data gathering in wireless sensor networks. AEU-Int J Electron C 73:110–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anwit R, Kumar P, Singh MP (2014) Virtual coordinates routing using vcp-m in wireless sensor network. In: 2014 international conference on computational intelligence and communication networks (CICN). IEEE, pp 402–407Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saleh AI, Arafat H, Hamed AM (2017) An adaptive hybrid routing strategy (ahrs) for mobile ad hoc networks. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications:1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12083-017-0558-4
  15. 15.
    Joh H, Ryoo I (2015) A hybrid wi-fi p2p with bluetooth low energy for optimizing smart device’s communication property. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 8(4):567–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sudhakar P, Pal P, Mukherjee A (2015) IRF-NMB: intelligent route formation technique in Ad Hoc network using node mobility behaviour. Natl Acad Sci Lett 38.3:213–219MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaswan A, Tomar A, Jana PK (2018) A GSA-based scheduling scheme for mobile charger in on-demand wireless rechargeable sensor networks. J Netw Comput Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2018.02.017
  18. 18.
    Singh J et al (2016) A study of soft computing models for prediction of longitudinal wave velocity. Arab J Geosci 9.3:224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang H-S, Sun J-H (2016) A study on hybrid trust evaluation model for identifying malicious behavior in mobile p2p. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 9(3):578–587MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park GS, Song H (2016) A novel hybrid p2p and cloud storage system for retrievability and privacy enhancement. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 9(2):299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhao J, Wu C, Lin X (2015) Locality-aware streaming in hybrid p2p-cloud cdn systems. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 8(2):320–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hwang C-L, Masud ASM (2012) Multiple objective decision making—methods and applications: a state-of-the-art survey, vol 164. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Caleffi M, Paura L (2011) M-dart: multi-path dynamic address routing. Wirel Commun Mob Comput 11 (3):392–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cacciapuoti AS, Caleffi M, Paura L (2012) Reactive routing for mobile cognitive radio ad hoc networks. Ad Hoc Netw 10(5):803–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Caleffi M, Akyildiz If, Paura L (2012) Opera: optimal routing metric for cognitive radio ad hoc networks. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 11(8):2884–2894Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sridhar S, Baskaran R, Chandrasekar P (2013) Energy supported aodv (en-aodv) for qos routing in manet. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 73:294–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pandey S, Pal P (2014) Spin-mi: energy saving routing algorithm based on spin protocol in wsn. Natl Acad Sci Lett 37(4):335–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sassatelli L, Ali A, Panda M, Chahed T, Altman E (2014) Reliable transport in delay-tolerant networks with opportunistic routing. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 13(10):5546–5557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ravi G, Kashwan KR (2015) A new routing protocol for energy efficient mobile applications for ad hoc networks. Comput Electr Eng 48:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pandey S, Pal P, Mukherjee A (2015) Irf-nmb: intelligent route formation technique in ad hoc network using node mobility behaviour. Natl Acad Sci Lett 38(3):213–219MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liu J, Hou YT, Shi Y, Sherali HD (2008) Cross-layer optimization for mimo-based wireless ad hoc networks: routing, power allocation, and bandwidth allocation. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 26(6):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guerriero F, De Rango F, Marano S, Bruno E (2009) A biobjective optimization model for routing in mobile ad hoc networks. Appl Math Model 33(3):1493–1512MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Guo Z, Malakooti S, Sheikh S, Al-Najjar C, Malakooti B (2011) Multi-objective olsr for proactive routing in manet with delay, energy, and link lifetime predictions. Appl Math Model 35(3):1413–1426CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee J-H, Moon I (2014) Modeling and optimization of energy efficient routing in wireless sensor networks. Appl Math Model 38(7):2280–2289MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gu C, Zhu Q (2014) An energy-aware routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks based on route energy comprehensive index. Wirel Pers Commun 79(2):1557–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Carvalho T, Jailton J Jr, Francês R (2016) A new cross-layer routing with energy awareness in hybrid mobile ad hoc networks: a fuzzy-based mechanism. Simul Model Pract Theory 63:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sadou M, Bouallouche-Medjkoune L (2016) Efficient message delivery in hybrid sensor and vehicular networks based on mathematical linear programming. Comput Electr Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2016.11.032
  38. 38.
    Kuo W-K, Chu S-H (2016) Energy efficiency optimization for mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Access 4:928–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mazumdar N, Om H (2017) Distributed fuzzy logic based energy-aware and coverage preserving unequal clustering algorithm for wireless sensor networks. Int J Commun Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.3283
  40. 40.
    Das SK, Yadav AK, Tripathi S (2017) Ie2m: design of intellectual energy efficient multicast routing protocol for ad-hoc network. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 10(3):670–687.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12083-016-0532-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yadav AK, Das SK, Tripathi S (2017) Efmmrp: design of efficient fuzzy based multi-constraint multicast routing protocol for wireless ad-hoc network. Comput Netw 118:15–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2017.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Das SK, Tripathi S (2016) Intelligent energy-aware efficient routing for manet. Wirel Netw:1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-016-1388-7
  43. 43.
    Caleffi M, Akyildiz If, Paura L (2015) On the solution of the steiner tree np-hard problem via physarum bionetwork. IEEE/ACM Trans Networking 23(4):1092–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nazi A, Raj M, Di Francesco M, Ghosh P, Das SK (2016) Efficient communications in wireless sensor networks based on biological robustness. In: 2016 international conference on distributed computing in sensor systems (DCOSS). IEEE, pp 161–168Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Das K, Bhaduri K, Kargupta H (2011) Multi-objective optimization based privacy preserving distributed data mining in peer-to-peer networks. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 4(2):192–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kaswan A, Singh V, Jana PK (2018) A multi-objective particle swarm optimization based energy efficient path design for mobile sink in wireless sensor networks. Pervasive and Mobile Computing.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2018.02.003
  47. 47.
    Ma Z, Zhao Q, Huang J (2017) Optimizing bandwidth allocation for heterogeneous traffic in iot. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 10(3):610–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ojha AK, Biswal KK (2014) Multi-objective geometric programming problem with-constraint method. Appl Math Model 38(2):747–758MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology (ISM)DhanbadIndia

Personalised recommendations